Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-19T15:17:47.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reputed Changes in Social Scientists' Sympathies Regarding the Nature-Nurture Controversy: An Exploratory Comparison1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Lee Ellis
Lee Ellis*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Minot State College, Minot, North Dakota 58701
Get access

Extract

Probably the most enduring question throughout the history of the social sciences pertains to how much human social behavior is a product of evolutionary, genetic, nonsocial, “natural” sorts of variables as opposed to learned sociocultural, environmental, “nurturing” variables (Hammond, 1983). Regardless of where individual social scientists themselves happen to have settled on this issue, many have offered an opinion about the prevailing position of social scientists generally on this question at various points in social science history. The present study compares these opinions, especially as they pertain to the twentieth century.

Type
Research in Progress
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , February 1984 , pp. 194 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ellis, L. (1979). “Rejoinder.” American Sociologist 12:77–80.Google Scholar
Eckberg, D. L. (1979). Intelligence and Race. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Fisher, H. E. (1982). “The Banned Science.” Science Digest 90:42, 107.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, A. (1977). “The Editor's Page.” American Sociologist 12: inside front cover.Google Scholar
Hammond, A. (1983). “The Nature-Nurture Debate: Gaining Higher Ground.” Science 83 4:5.Google Scholar
Kandel, Denise B. (1980). “Drug and Drinking Behavior among Youth.” Annual Review of Sociology 6:235–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenski, Gerhard, and Lenski, Jean (1982). Human Societies. 4th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. O. (1978). “Psychobiological Vulnerabilities to Delinquency.” Journal of Child Psychiatry 17:193–195.Google Scholar
McClearn, G. E. (1971). “Behavioral Genetics.” Behavioral Science 16:64–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mednick, Sarnoff A. (1977). “Preface.” In Mednick, S. A. and Christiansen, K. O. (eds.), Biosocial Bases of Criminal Behavior. New York: Gardner, pp. ix–x.Google Scholar
Mednick, S. A., and Volavka, J.J. (1980). “Biology and Crime.” In Morris, N. and Tonry, M. (eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Vol. 2, pp. 85–158.Google Scholar
Peter, K., and Petryszak, N. (1980). “Sociobiology and Biosociology.” In Montagu, A. (ed.), Sociobiology Examined. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 39–81.Google Scholar
Reed, E. (1972). “Introduction.” In Engels, F. (ed.), The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. New York: Pathfinder Press, pp. 7–22.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, R. (1982). Beyond Separate Spheres. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert (1976). “Introduction.” In Somit, A. (ed.), Biology and Politics. Paris: Mouton, pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
Stent, G. S. (1978). “Introduction.” In Stent, G. (ed.), Morality as a Biological Concept. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Van den Berghe, Pierre (1978). Man in Society, A Biosocial View. 2nd Edition. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Van den Berghe, Pierre (1982). “Bridging the Paradigms: Biology and the Social Sciences.” In Wiegele, T. C. (ed.), Biology and the Social Sciences: An Emerging Revolution. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, pp. 13–28.Google Scholar